NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal
revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify
the Virginia Court of Appeals.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Hodges
Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
Record No. 2554-02-1
JHYY DEMOND CHUBBICK
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
BY JUDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS
OCTOBER 28, 2003
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE
Bruce H. Kushner, Judge
Matthew T. Taylor for appellant.
Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W. Kilgore,
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Jhyy Demond Chubbick appeals his conviction, after a jury trial,
for felony escape from a
law enforcement officer, in violation of Code ? 18.2-478.
Chubbick contends the trial court
erred in denying his motion to strike the charge on the grounds
that the evidence failed to
establish, as a matter of law, that Chubbick "was in the
custody of an officer on a charge of
criminal offense." Because we find that Chubbick failed to
argue in his brief on appeal the
specific issue upon which his appeal was awarded, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
This Court granted Chubbick’s petition for appeal on March 7,
2003. In our order
granting Chubbick’s petition, we limited his appeal to a single
issue. Specifically, whether "[t]he
trial court err[ed] by denying appellant’s motion to strike
where the evidence failed to prove he
was in the custody of an officer on a charge of criminal
However, in his brief on appeal, Chubbick does not argue that
the Commonwealth failed
to prove that he was in the custody of police on a criminal
offense. Instead, Chubbick argues
that the Commonwealth failed to prove he was in the custody of
police on a "felonious charge."
To support his argument, Chubbick contends that "[Code ?] 18.2-479(B)" requires the
Commonwealth to "prove" that Chubbick "escape[d] from a law enforcement officer while in
custody on a charge or conviction of a felony."
(Emphases in original). Thus, in his brief on
appeal, Chubbick curiously ignores the fact that he was
convicted of a violation of Code
? 18.2-478, not Code ? 18.2-479(B). This is true, despite the
fact that the record clearly
demonstrates that, prior to the commencement of trial, Chubbick
specifically agreed to amend
the indictment, changing the charge from an alleged violation
under Code ? 18.2-479(B) to one
under Code ? 18.2-478.
Because Chubbick failed to brief the specific issue upon which
his appeal was awarded,
and as directed by this Court, we do not address his appeal
further. See Rule 5A:20(e) (requiring
the appellant’s brief to include, among other things,
"principles of law, the argument, and the
authorities relating to each question presented"); Thomas
v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 319,
321 n.1, 563 S.E.2d 406, 407 n.1 (2002) (recognizing that
conclusory assertions in a brief,
unsupported by "argument, authority, or citations to the
record," do not merit appellate
consideration); Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 36 Va. App. 8, 15,
548 S.E.2d 230, 234 (2001);
Bennett v. Commonwealth, 35 Va. App. 442, 452, 546 S.E.2d 209,
213 (2001); Buchanan v.
Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial
Code ? 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Further,
because this opinion has no precedential value, we recite only
those facts essential to our
also tried on charges of assault and battery on a law enforcement officer,
in violation of Code ? 18.2-57(C), and breaking and entering
with the intent to commit larceny,
in violation of Code ? 18.2-91. The jury convicted Chubbick of
assault and battery on a law
enforcement officer, but acquitted him on the charge of breaking
and entering. Neither of these
charges, nor their disposition, is at issue on this appeal.
raises no issue on appeal pertaining to the propriety of the amendment.